From an objective perspective, I could see making an error that would prevent level four by missing one turn. However, for her to do as many steps as she did but only do 1/3 needed in both directions makes me think her program was choreographed in this way, and for her to get level 3 multiple times this season would suggest she would review the footage and change the choreography needed to get level 4.

This casts doubt in my mind, as to whether the rules are indeed interpretted as BoP says.

Unless she had no intention of trying for level 4, could she really get it so badly wrong as to miss THAT many elements? Neither seems very plausible (although either IS possible).

And if the tech panel was deliberately cheating, would they really do it in a way that is so easy to catch? Especially when it (apparently) has so little value in terms of points? I mean this is not like a borderline edge or UR call, or anonymous and subjective GoE or PCS scoring - this is something that's "out there" for anyone with sufficient knowledge to spot. Again, it doesn't seem very plausible. They could of course simply be incompetent. This is where analysis of other skaters would help.

Wow, you've done the same analysis for every level 4 step sequence in the past four years?

EVERY competitive skating choreographer knows the rule and choreographs the sequence as such if their skater is capable of it. Would you like me to get Lori Nichol on The Skating Lesson?

I have done this analysis for all of Patrick Chan's and Daisuke Takahashi's footwork sequences from the past 4 years, btw. They do 5 different types of turns, each type in both directions, and 3 different types of steps, each type in both directions.

Originally Posted by YesWay

Unless she had no intention of trying for level 4, could she really get it so badly wrong as to miss THAT many elements?

Do you have ANY clue as to how difficult figure skating is and how common it is to get an edge wrong?

EVERY competitive skating choreographer knows the rule and choreographs the sequence as such if their skater is capable of it. Would you like me to get Lori Nichol on The Skating Lesson?

I have done this analysis for all of Patrick Chan's and Daisuke Takahashi's footwork sequences from the past 4 years, btw. They do 5 different types of turns, each type in both directions, and 3 different types of steps, each type in both directions.

What they have done is consistent with both interpretations so I'm not sure how that favors one. Maybe they chose 5 turns instead of 6 because it's easier.

Are you suggesting that Adelina's team is so clueless as to not know they needed to do more than one step in both directions, as she did 3+ in each direction? Her choreographer is an ice dancer and she got level 3 multiple times this season. I'm sure they could have figured it out.

This casts doubt in my mind, as to whether the rules are indeed interpretted as BoP says.

Unless she had no intention of trying for level 4, could she really get it so badly wrong as to miss THAT many elements? Neither seems very plausible (although either IS possible).

And if the tech panel was deliberately cheating, would they really do it in a way that is so easy to catch? Especially when it (apparently) has so little value in terms of points? I mean this is not like a borderline edge or UR call, or anonymous and subjective GoE or PCS scoring - this is something that's "out there" for anyone with sufficient knowledge to spot. Again, it doesn't seem very plausible. They could of course simply be incompetent. Analysis of other skaters would be telling.

I don't mean to be (too, lol) insulting but are you basing your opinion because DMD started the sentence with "From an object perspective (which isn't really true anyway, the part about the OP being objective when it comes to Adelina, lol). Adelina could have just as easily got lost in the moment and probably forgot a sequence or two. Just because she intended to do them did not mean that she did. Her program was certainly busy enough that it certainly was possible that she failed to mentally check a box or two.

The bottom line for me is (stray) comma, or not, i cannot see how the rules can be parsed any differently than BoP stated (at least realistically). Anything else smacks of gainsaying for the sake of being contradictory to me.

I do not find the argument very convincing that goes, "Adelina's choreographer must have known the rules, therefore Adelina must have executed a level four sequence."

If that was all there was to it, every skater would do a level four sequence every time. Adelina herself would have done a level four sequence all season long -- the choreographer did not just suddenly discover the rules last month.

What they have done is consistent with both interpretations so I'm not sure how that favors one. Maybe they chose 5 turns instead of 6 because it's easier.

Are you suggesting that Adelina's team is so clueless as to not know they needed to do more than one step in both directions, as she did 3+ in each direction? Her choreographer is an ice dancer and she got level 3 multiple times this season. I'm sure they could have figured it out.

When tech school and clarification memos to tech panel members push that it means 5 CW and 5 CCW and 3 CW and 3CCW and 3 sets of "clusters" for L4, then that is what is meant. As I stated when I cut and pasted the rules and the source, my coach IS a Regional TS and in designing her skaters' leveled steps (and in calling leveled steps at competitions), she makes sure it is 5/5 and 3/3 MINIMUM or else it doesn't get called. I suspect that if Sotnikova was trying to get a L4, either her bracket was supposed to be a counter or her counter was supposed to be a bracket (as those were the mis-matched turns).

There is also a possibility that it was DESIGNED as a L3 (especially since she's gotten L2 and L3 all season until here) but it was miscalled.

elif, those are probably her "easy" turns based on body construction and what she has learned and are a good way for HER to cover the ice. I know I cover better ice and gain more speed as I go on both of those types of turns (and twizzles) than I do on brackets and counters.

I do not find the argument very convincing that goes, "Adelina's choreographer must have known the rules, therefore Adelina must have executed a level four sequence."

No, what I'm saying is that she must be attempting a level four sequence, as getting only 1 out of 3 steps right is (as YesWay pointed out) either (a) bad choreography or (b) a spectacular failure in execution.

When tech school and clarification memos to tech panel members push that it means 5 CW and 5 CCW and 3 CW and 3CCW and 3 sets of "clusters" for L4, then that is what is meant. As I stated when I cut and pasted the rules and the source, my coach IS a Regional TS and in designing her skaters' leveled steps (and in calling leveled steps at competitions), she makes sure it is 5/5 and 3/3 MINIMUM or else it doesn't get called. I suspect that if Sotnikova was trying to get a L4, either her bracket was supposed to be a counter or her counter was supposed to be a bracket (as those were the mis-matched turns).

There is also a possibility that it was DESIGNED as a L3 (especially since she's gotten L2 and L3 all season until here) but it was miscalled.

don't worry - your posts are getting read - it's just that the adelina ubers have no counter to them

When tech school and clarification memos to tech panel members push that it means 5 CW and 5 CCW and 3 CW and 3CCW and 3 sets of "clusters" for L4, then that is what is meant. As I stated when I cut and pasted the rules and the source, my coach IS a Regional TS and in designing her skaters' leveled steps (and in calling leveled steps at competitions), she makes sure it is 5/5 and 3/3 MINIMUM or else it doesn't get called. I suspect that if Sotnikova was trying to get a L4, either her bracket was supposed to be a counter or her counter was supposed to be a bracket (as those were the mis-matched turns).

There is also a possibility that it was DESIGNED as a L3 (especially since she's gotten L2 and L3 all season until here) but it was miscalled.

So a regional TS is who choreographs designs L4 steps for her students and yet there's a possibility that Adelina's team planned level 3 for her? You really think her SS are awful.

When tech school and clarification memos to tech panel members push that it means 5 CW and 5 CCW and 3 CW and 3CCW and 3 sets of "clusters" for L4, then that is what is meant. As I stated when I cut and pasted the rules and the source, my coach IS a Regional TS and in designing her skaters' leveled steps (and in calling leveled steps at competitions), she makes sure it is 5/5 and 3/3 MINIMUM or else it doesn't get called. I suspect that if Sotnikova was trying to get a L4, either her bracket was supposed to be a counter or her counter was supposed to be a bracket (as those were the mis-matched turns).

There is also a possibility that it was DESIGNED as a L3 (especially since she's gotten L2 and L3 all season until here) but it was miscalled.

I like your latter explanation. I would seem likely based upon the fact that she had not gotten Level 4 on her programs all season. This way. she would not have had her choreography changed to work in the extra turns. It still begs the question why the tech panel failed so epically here. Is this a case where there just not enough eyes on what's happening on the ice?

I am willing to accept mskater93's corroboration of BoP's interpretation of the rules. This is helpful.

Now is there anyone who can verify that BoP spotted and counted everything up correctly, and therefore Adelinas steps were indeed only level 3? mskater93? zamboni step? Oh go on! :-D

Assuming no issues there - it would become irrelevant why she only did level3 steps on the night... all that would be left would be: how come the judges gave her level4?

But I still don't think there is any conclusion to be drawn on that (cheating, incompetence, whatever)... without similar analysis of other skaters. (Only Adelina receiving such benefit would be highly suspicious... multiple skaters getting the same boost for similar deficiencies might point to a general leniency rather than bias, random boosts might point to incompetence... etc).